Those cables don't say what you think they say. They say Australian diplomats think the US eventually intends to extradite Assange, and believe that Assange is currently being investigated by someone in the US Government. That should not surprise anybody. Somebody is definitely keeping an eye on Assange, because Wikileaks managed to hurt US Government interests badly. "Keeping an eye on" constitutes an investigation. And if you're not a cop you could easily conclude that they wouldn't investigate him if they had no intention of charging him with a crime.

He's not gonna be charged with anything by the US Government. As a guy who is put on trial for releasing diplomatic cables he's a major embarrassment. As a freedom of information advocate whose trying to flee to Ecuador (which opposes freedom of information) to dodge rape charges? Even if he's vindicated by the Swedes he's a punchline. They'll keep on eye on him just in case, but they ain't gonna make him a martyr.

Seriously. The major reason I don't think the CIA has anything to do with his current plight is simple: I don't think the CIA is that good. I don't think it's humanly possible to be that good.

Sweden is a democracy with extradition laws. Assange may never get his day in court. Personally I totally believe the possibility that the US would want to question Assange and detain him indefinitely, regardless of the international outcry. The USA is also a democracy, with a place like Guantanamo Bay, which is still running.

1) Naomi Wolf has been following this case since 2010:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/post_1435_b_797188.html [huffingtonpost.com]...long enough to look up all the Swedish law and case histories she doesn't already have, particularly since the article above contains the news: "Well, I was in Denmark in March of this year at a global gathering for women leaders on International Women's Day, and heard extensively from specialists in sex crime and victims' rights in Sweden."...that's March of 2010, nearly 30 months ago.

2) Unusual case, indeed, but nothing about its unusual-ness relates to whether the original complaint merited charges, not after the original prosecutor declined to charge and a prosecutor clear across Sweden took the very, ahem, unusual step of deciding to re-start a case from outside their normal jurisdiction (it's federal, so they *could*, but it's very...unusual).

3) She is hardly accusing "the entire Swedish political elite", she just notes the Rove connection without drawing conclusions. The Rove story has been very hot in Sweden, because Rove is considered by many to have won elections in his past by abuses of the legal system, including, it is said, planting a bug in his own office and getting an investigation of his client's opponent started on the basis of it; and involvement in the framing of an Alabama politician for corruption, as reported by 60 minutes:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/21/60minutes/main3859830.shtml [cbsnews.com]

It's quite normal for Karl Rove to have no provable connection at all to things that happen when he's around - like his old law partner starting the swift boat organization. People have generally started to regard him as smoke and start looking for fire.

I might add - it's funny for you to regard Naomi Wolf as unable to comment on Swedish law because she's American, but regard as obvious that Swedish politicians would look to an American for electoral advice in their very different system (no state-level, no third branch of government, no electoral college - it's a constitutional monarchy with a parliament).

Sweden is a democracy, can't argue with that one. It's just a democracy that helped with extraordinary rendition of suspects to where they were tortured - so you can kind of understand somebody's reluctance to hand themselves over to their tender mercies; the rendered guys never got that day in court of which you speak.

Mostly espionage laws as a foreign agent. If he were a US Citizen it'd be treason, and the punishment is death.

Most people try to apply their own strange perception to legal matters, especially involving espionage. "Oh this should have never been secret" "how is this a matter of national security" etc. The fact is the government says so and that's the end of that; until you put the government on trial for abuse of power and make them liable for classifying things in bad faith, that stuff is taken on faith to be important state secrets. That means disseminating it is an act of war.

I looked at that article, and the comments, and the article it linked to, but couldn't find a link to the cables directly, so I'll have to go with what's in the article [smh.com.au].

All it suggests is that the US have an investigation into the leaks (and thus Assange) and that the Australians wanted to be kept informed. While yes, this suggests that they are thinking about him, I'm not sure if is indicative that they're after him as much as Assange seems to think. He may have broken US laws (at least, someone may have and he's the key piece in the puzzle), and they're investigating it.

The more he does (or doesn't do), and the more I read, the more I'm convinced he's either paranoid or using the cover of US oppression to escape doing some rather mean things in Sweden.

You go into valid points about the rape, but you missed the big one: how many "surprise sex" rapists are internationally hunted and extradicted on the level of a terrorist? I mean seriously, would you expect Australia or Sweden to go after every internationally-based guy who slept with a woman without a condom to the point of shutting down embassies? The sheer amount of effort going on here for a less-than-violent rape is ridiculous, and it wouldn't happen for almost anyone except Assange. Great efforts for something low on the rape scale.

Could it be that really they are seeking Assange for his Wikileaks efforts instead?

I think you have a bit of a skewed version of the events. There has been no massive level of hunting going on, only normal legal methods, that have then gotten drawn out by his behaviour.

So it starts with Assanage going to the UK. Sweden then says "We want you back here for questioning regarding these charges." He says "No you can question me remotely, but I won't come back." They say "That's not ok, you have to come here in person." He refuses. This is all consistent with not only Swedish law, but pretty much anywhere. Cops like to interview people in person for many reasons and you'll find that if you say "No, just call me and interview me that way," they will make the in person thing more compulsory.

So Sweden files for extradition. This is normal between countries. If a country has someone you want, you have to formally file for extradition. In Europe it is even more common given how many countries are close to each other, they have a fairly streamlined setup, agencies like Interpol and so on. Pretty much have to unless you want criminals evading justice by skipping national lines.

This is just a pro-forma thing, the extradition treaty is such that this is a legit request. So Assanage is held by the British Police to make sure he doesn't run (as the treaty specifies) and is released on bail (as British law provides). However Assanage's legal team then fights this extradition tooth and nail over any issue they can. It finally goes all the way up to the British High Court who rules that this is a legal extradition request per the treaty and thus is going to happen. Remember they aren't concerned with the validity of the crime, that is for a Swedish court to decide, just if the request is a legit one per the treaty.

Well then Assanage runs off to the Ecuadorian embassy. At this point, he's now a criminal in Britain: He skipped on bail. Prior to that has was in no trouble there, they were just watching him because of the extradition request. However when he skipped bail, he broke British law. So now they have a criminal complaint against him, and are probably fairly angry. The whole idea of bail is you promising to appear as required, and as such being allowed to go free until then.

Ecuador then granted Assanage asylum, which is a slap in Britain's face. Part of being a diplomat in a foreign country is you are a guest and you are supposed to obey their laws. You don't shelter criminals or the like. So now the UK is quite angry, and understandably so. It is a major diplomatic breach and they are threatening retaliation. This is legal. Embassies are not some complete inviolable entity that some people seem to think. They can be dissolved unilaterally by the host country. The diplomats and their papers must be allowed to leave without hindrance, but the embassy can be dissolved. Also there are provisions for the police to enter and get someone. They can't arrest any of the diplomats, nor touch any of the papers, but they can arrest a non-protected person in there.

So this really isn't that unusual except in the lengths that Assanage has gone to in trying to avoid going to Sweden. If the police in a country, particularly in the EU, want to talk to someone in another country and that person won't come in, an extradition request is how you deal with thing. For example the UK received about 4,000 extradition requests from other EU countries in 2011. It is quite a standard activity.

Now they are just angry because he has broken UK law by skipping bail, and they are angry with Ecuador for pulling this stunt. There really isn't anything witch-hunty going on unless you consider the original charges in Sweden to be that. All the stuff in terms of extradition and the UK are quite normal.

So it starts with Assanage going to the UK. Sweden then says "We want you back here for questioning regarding these charges." He says "No you can question me remotely, but I won't come back." They say "That's not ok, you have to come here in person." He refuses. This is all consistent with not only Swedish law, but pretty much anywhere. Cops like to interview people in person for many reasons and you'll find that if you say "No, just call me and interview me that way," they will make the in person thing more compulsory.

It starts with Sweden clearing him for travel. And he does so. Then, he is called back. He's a suspicious sort, and offers to come back if he gets a guarantee he won't be extradited to the US. Sweden said no. He offers to meet in person, in the UK. But Sweden said no. He offered a video or tele conference, Sweden said no. Sweden has not charged him with any crime. He's offered to waive his right to be there. Sweden said no. Sweden has insisted that he come back to Swedish soil, nevermind the US agents at the airport.

Why has Sweden said "no" to ever offer? What would Sweden be willing to do to talk to Julian? Anything? They don't even seem overly interested in actually talking to him. They seem to want one and only one thing, to get him on Swedish soil at all costs. That seems very very unusual.

Ecuador then granted Assanage asylum, which is a slap in Britain's face. Part of being a diplomat in a foreign country is you are a guest and you are supposed to obey their laws. You don't shelter criminals or the like.

I'm not sure on the timeline, but I didn't think that Julian was a criminal at the time Ecuador initially extended the offer for asylum.

So this really isn't that unusual except in the lengths that Assanage has gone to in trying to avoid going to Sweden.

I didn't think it that unusual, other than the lengths that Sweden has gone to to get Julian back after they told him they would not charge him and he was released and told he could go.

From what I understand, the maximum penalty he could receive is less than the time he already served "in custody" in the UK, plus a rather small fine, relatively speaking. Also, he is not wanted for a trial, but only for questioning. The Swedish police so far have not taken up the invitation to question Assange in the UK, personally, via teleconference or in writing. Even if he was extradited and went to trial in Sweden and indeed found guilty, they could only make him pay the small fine, since the time he spent in custody in the UK will count as well. The whole "witch hunt" has no merit, he already went to jail, is being restricted against his will for a long period and I doubt that he'd mind paying the fine if the result would be that he'd be able to walk around free again. Things just don't add up, there must be an alternate agenda behind all this. Don't get me wrong, this is not about Assange being right or innocent, this is about an extradition request that makes no sense.

a) Nothing about this 'investigation' passes any known smell test. No matter how you sniff it, it smells of rat.

Some 5 courts and at least 10 judges have looked into this "investigation" and found nothing rat-like about it. But maybe you have a better nose than them (or more facts).

b) Yes, it's much, much easier for the USA to grab him from Sweden than the UK [justice4assange.com]. Once he's there they can 'borrow' him with hardly any legal process.

Ok, after about half an hour of research, I think I've managed to find where the "temporary surrender" thing comes from (sorry, but I don't trust justice4assange.com to be entirely independent and unbiased). It seems to originate with Article VI of the Supplementary convention on extradition between Sweden and the US, signed in 1983, TIAS 10812. Apparently it's too old to be published anywhere official, but there's a copy here [wordpress.com].

Article VI states:

If the extradition request is granted in the case of a person who is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence in the territory of the requested State for a different offense, the requested State may:

(a) defer the surrender of the person sought until the conclusion of the proceedings against that person, or the full execution of any punishment that may be or may have been imposed; or

(b) temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State for the purpose of prosecution. The person so surrendered shall be kept in custody while in the requesting State and shall be returned to the requested State after the conclusion of the proceedings against that person in accordance with conditions to be determined by mutual agreement of the Contracting States.

Right, so what does this mean? Yes, Sweden can temporarily surrender him to the US for the purpose of prosecution. However, note the first 6 words; "If the extradition request is granted...". I'm not an international lawyer, but to me that means that the US must first apply for extradition, thus jumping through all the various hoops (both in Sweden and the UK, including challenges in courts) before they can even start looking into temporary surrender.

Secondly, there is absolutely no reason why this process (being part of extradition, and an action carried out by the State, i.e. Sweden) wouldn't be subject to the ECHR, in particular, Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 and any others Assange might want to throw at the case. So using "temporary surrender" would actually be *harder* than normal extradition, as there is that extra step on top of everything else.

Thirdly, and the main reason to dismiss nearly all of his claims: if this is a problem, why isn't Assange arguing it in court? If he has, it must have been dismissed by the Court. On this point, we go to the initial extradition ruling [bailii.org], final major paragraph beginning "There was at one stage..." Actually, I might as well just post the whole paragraph here as I seem to be pasting lots anyway... (emphasis mine):

There was at one stage a suggestion that Mr Assange could be extradited to the USA (possibly to Guantanamo Bay or to execution as a traitor). The only live evidence on the point came from the defence witness Mr Alhem who said it couldn’t happen. In the absence of any evidence that Mr Assange risks torture or execution Mr Robertson was right not to pursue this point in closing. It may be worth adding that I do not know if Sweden has an extradition treaty with the United States of America. There has been no evidence regarding this. I would expect that there is such a treaty. If Mr Assange is surrendered to Sweden and a request is made to Sweden for his extradition

The US in it's typical ignorance and arrogance has pushed the whole all out of proportion and dragging everyone else into it Sweden, UK and Australia. What should have been a simple matter was blown all out of proportion, with that stupid Interpol warrant and from there it was all down hill. Pompous wankers is a pretty accurate description for the US government.

This is what I don't understand about the current conspiracy theory: Why would the US involve Sweden? I mean do the math. How many people has Sweden extradited to the US and how many people has the UK?

If the US wanted him they could just ask the UK to hand him over since I doubt anyone remembers the last time the UK refused a US extradition request.

After reading this I went to the Swedish government website on extraditions [sweden.gov.se] And I went off and read the relevant treaties with the US [wordpress.com] (article VI is the relevant one) Now there is something called a temporary extradition but it is only for the case where someone is being prosecuted or has been sentenced in Sweden so that the person can be returned to Sweden at the completion of there sentence. I see no evidence that this is for questioning or anything like that and all normal safeguards are in place. The only people who seem to be claiming otherwise are Assange supporters.

Not recognized, huh? Kinda like the multi-trillion dollar deficit, eh?

What a crock of shit.

Hey the US doesn't even recognise the International Court of Justice.What a shit country it is. It has no rule of law, it has institutionalised torture, it has its own STASI, it has a militarised police aparatus, and it incarcerates more of its own citizens than any other first world country. Oh and it can assassinate its own citizens without any judicial oversight. As well as throwing people in jail without discolsing any kind of public evidence.France should reclaim The Statue of Liberty. It serves no purpose anymore in a land that has become more oppresive and arbitrary than what you would have experienced in the Soviet Union during the cold war years. What a terrible irony.

Ask somebody there in their 20s what happened there in 1989. Their resposne "nothing I know of."

Much like King George III's supposed diary entry for July 4, 1776: "Nothing of importance happened today."

Tell them that you are going to get on a plane and visit Thailand for the weekend and ask if they want to come along. Their response will be, I have to go down to the police station to apply for a visa.

And if you ask a young American the same, the response will likely be "Thailand? Is that like a country?"Then tell them that it borders four other countries, and ask them to name just one of them.

Just because the USA doesn't support your view of "anarchy" doesn't mean that it isn't the "land of the free."

ITYM your view of anarchy. See, the rest of us don't consider basic human rights to be anarchy.

Just because someplace else is worse, doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to the problems we have here. And the situation here has clearly been deteriorating.

Since you brought it up, let's take 1989 for an example:

In 1989, the US was a place people fled TO, in order to get AWAY from repressive governments; not the government doing the repressing.

In 1989, you could go on that trip to Thailand without being irradiated with backscatter x-rays, taking you shoes and belt off, or getting felt up by some thug at the airport; and your friends or family could accompany you to the departure gate to see you off.

In 1989, you could pop over to some of the closer countries such as Canada, Mexico, or The Bahamas, for a visit; and be re-admitted to the US with nothing more than your drivers' license.

In 1989, no one had heard of a "free speech zone". The entire *country* was a free speech zone.

In 1989, you could go to concerts, amusement parks, nightclubs, and ballparks without being groped by some thug, having to show the contents of your pockets, backpack, or purse to another, going through a metal detector, or being under constant 1984-ish CCTV surveillance.

Maybe we're still free enough, in comparison to countries like China, to be considered "the land of the free". But we've been becoming progressively less free for years.

Most US citizens live at a pleasant level of luxury with a sufficient sense of security and sufficient hope for a better future. Because of this, they would rather not get involved in politics very much at all (mostly they just vote to impose their morality on their neighbors, or to resist having their neighbors impose their morality on them).

The American public finds it very comforting to believe that they are safe and free and an example to the world of how to do governance properly. This belief is not challenged by their circumstances (as mentioned above), and so it persists despite the right-out-in-public actions that directly contradict this belief, and that the American government continues to take without hesitation or remorse.

In fact, the unchecked tyranny of the American government actually benefits most of the American people, as it ensures that Americans can continue to have their cheap goods and relatively steady jobs and not have to make any sacrifices to pay down the beyond-their-capacity-to-envision national debt.

Therefore, anyone who points out the real injustices perpetuated by the American government, most Americans just write it off as conspiracy theory nonsense, without expending the slightest modicum of effort at checking the facts. The problem isn't just that they don't know, but that they don't want to know. And they sure don't want to put themselves at risk, or make any kind of sacrifice, to protect those other people in other countries from their beloved government. Nor do they want to protect those boat-rockers right in their own country, as such boat-rockers seem to be spewing nonsense and offer only to make things worse for the very people of whom they are demanding action.

Until the majority of Americans feel the pain of their Government's actions, directly, they will NOT get up and hold their government accountable. They will just vote for the next charismatic man who uses words like "hope" and "change" and feel smug about having voted, as usual.

BTW, I sure hope you aren't an American or living in America. If you are, get the hell out of here. If America is such a crappy country, you aren't wanted here either. We will fix our problems in our own way. I should note that the reason you know about the problems in America is in part because we talk about them and don't hide them under the table like some countries do, such as perhaps Iran, China, and North Korea. Living in America as an ordinary citizen isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be either.

Not the same AC as previous AC, but I thought I'd respond (I'm from Scotland btw).

The US has something like 300 million people living in it. Do you really think with that many people that all are happy with the status quo? If not, should all the people who aren't just leave without trying to change things for the better? You should welcome the people who want things to change for the better. Encourage them to stay, and get politically active. Don't just stick your fingers in your ears, pretend that it's all perfect and tell them to leave.

Your country has had some pretty crap people in charge for quite some time. Rights are being eroded before you, and the country has got some pretty poor rankings worldwide. The highest prison population in the world, and 1 in 9 black people in jail? The wage gap just keeps getting worse because people won't tax the rich because they're so afraid of being though of as socialist. Your politicians are totally out of touch with how real people live. Your healthcare is very inefficient, and good only for those who can pay for it (and a huge proportion of your country can't). Despite separation of church and state, women's health is being trampled over by the religious right, and creation myths are being taught in the classroom at the taxpayer's expense. That's nothing to be proud of.

By the way, I don't claim that the UK is in any way perfect either, we've been trampling over rights too, we've got hypocrites in government, we mock Russia's censorship while engaging in it ourselves, the Conservatives are trying to destroy the poor and disabled, and tear down the NHS, and we've recently tried to invade an embassy. No, I don't like the way our country is run at all. But I wouldn't suggest that people who don't like it should just shut up and go elsewhere.

There has been a very strong and pernicious trend in the US in the last 25 years or so.

That trend, is to dig in, become a recalcitrant ass, and tell everyone else that they are wrong, supertroll-style.

This is purely speculation, and observation, and will surely reek of bullshit and tinfoil hattery; all the same, here it goes.

The US has developed a culture that, for the past decade at least, fosters a climate of refusing personal liability and culpability. NOBODY wants to accept the natural or legal consequences of their actions. Drive with the dash protecting sun-screen still on the dash? NOT YOUR FAULT! The maker of the sun-screen forgot to put a warning label on, telling you not to be an idiot! Nevermind that it would be completely impossible to see through an OPAQUE device, INTENDED to block light! No, you're an AMERICAN, you are special, and if that company didnt give you a written warning, YOU DESERVE MILLIONS!

This mentality has fostered several unfortunate trends as a consequence.

Firstly, culpability is now tied to foreknowledge. The stupider you can make yourself appear to be (or actually be), the more protected you are from guilt! Naturally, this results in Americans who want to use things they know practically nothing about, absolutely dont know what makes those things work, and makes them staunchly refuse to learn such things, because if they did, they would become legally and culturally liable if they fuck up.

Should the US continue down its track, it will not quite resemble Nazi germany. Germany had a central authority. The US wont have one. It will continue to have theoretical checks and balances, for the sole purpose of creating catch 22s for trapping and demasculating attempts to pin culpability for government wrongdoing. Much like seen here, with this government reply to Assange. "Oh, I'm just a senator, I cant fix that!" or "I'm just the president! The congress and senate make the laws! I just enforce them!"

The result would be a lumbering steamroller of runaway government, with no controls. Because without controls, how can you be responsible for what it does?

The same "I dont know about those things, so you cant blame me for them" defense is used everywhere over here, and is why people dont know about the bullshit this country does. People who DO take an interest are considered political nutjobs, or just plain strange. "Why would you even care about that?" etc.

The cultural situation is clearly fucked. But of course, nobody will look at it.

And, as previously demonstrated in this thread, the people who do point it out are told to shut the fuck up, and go away. (because spreading awareness is the same as spreading liability, which our culture pathologically avoids and projects onto others.)

Go america. Show the world how to REALLY become a despotic nightmare place to live. Remember, it's not your fault if you refuse to learn things! Its the teachers for failing to teach you!

What is happening is that America (and most Americans) don't want the U.S. government to be subordinated below some global government. We've already seen what happens when sovereignty is surrendered to a more universal government, and for the most part we don't want to see that happen again. Once was enough and even then that universal government has likely gone too far.

You're talking about the US federal government, to which the states were subordinated? Or the states, to which the counties are subordinated? Or the counties, to which the municipalities are subordinated? You really need to be a little more clear here. If this is more of that "state's rights" bullshit, let me remind you once again: the original and most powerful argument both for and against state's rights was slavery.

Also: fuck you. What is this shit?

BTW, I sure hope you aren't an American or living in America. If you are, get the hell out of here.

I'm not leaving my country just because some assholes think they should be able to torture without criticism. The UN and the International Court are an attempt to bring the world a little closer together. They've had some successes and some failures, but the most important thing is the effort. Turning our back on the UN means turning our back on the rest of the world, all for the sake of some worthless sovereignty?

Should an ordinary citizen be critical of their leaders because they don't like what they are doing? Absolutely! This is particularly true in a democratic republic with elected representatives who should be held to a higher standard and expected to be doing the right thing, or at least generally follow the will of the people they represent. It isn't perfect, but it sure sounds better than many other kinds of governments where an ordinary citizen has a whole lot less say in how their government works.

The problems with the United Nations is for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that the other countries in the UN really don't share the same culture, values, or for that matter even the same political systems as America. As a place to meet and discuss things of mutual concern, the United Nations is a wonderful organization and in general can and should be used as an instrument for world peace. It provides a forum for global debates and a place where leaders of different countries (or their representatives) can join together and accomplish some amazing things.

The United Nations was never intended to be a global government though that would take over the sovereignty of its member nations, and those who think it ought to be a global government really are seeking to establish a global tyranny that enslaves everybody.

"States rights" is a part of the American experiment in governance, where the idea originally proposed was to have a very small national government where almost all authority for actions rested as locally as possible. This is generally a good idea, as some small town mayor or police chief may get a swelled head and do stupid things, but their reach is very limited and can't act when somebody goes into a neighboring town or state. Another aspect of this experiment is to disperse power of governance as widely as possible and to deliberately slow down decision making in such a way that important things take a long time to be resolved. Almost every major political screw up (including the Gitmo internment of "terrorists" and other similar prisons operated by the CIA and the U.S. military) happen because those involved did not follow the constitution or laws were enacted which granted unconstitutional authority.

Subordinating the U.S. Supreme Court to become subordinate to the International Court or World Court (two different entities) is something that is simply unacceptable. Certainly it shouldn't be done without at least some sort of constitutional amendment (what I was talking about in terms of dispersed political power and time to debate the issue) that alters the original contract that Americans set up with our national government to make such a thing happen. If the President of the United States is saying that America won't be bound by rulings of that court and if the U.S. Congress goes out of their way to enact legislation to explicitly authorize the U.S. military to act against rulings of that court, that is not only constitutional but imperative to the operation and functioning of American society. That isn't "turning our back" on the UN, but rather not letting a couple idiots changing a basic part of our government without our consent.

I am also stating plainly that there is a snowball's chance in hell that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution would ever be passed by the required number of states to enable jurisdiction of these courts over Americans. Thus, when the U.S. President is saying that the courts have no jurisdiction over Americans, he is actually upholding his oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America". Strangely, that is really the only thing a U.S. President has to do as well that is a requirement of his position.

If this is more of that "state's rights" bullshit, let me remind you once again: the original and most powerful argument both for and against state's rights was slavery.

If this is more of that "democracy" bullshit, let me remind you once again: Hitler was elected democratically!

Sorry for Godwin'ing the argument, but I'm using it to make a point. You can attack religious freedom, for example, by pointing out that some religions practice various forms of abuse, but that's just a red herring; it's package dealing. It evades all logical argument by drawing a correlation between what you are trying to attack with something that no one would dare want to come across as defending. It's actually extremely cowardly and demonstrates a lack of willingness to persuade by instead appealing to emotions.

As for the strongest argument in favour of "state's rights" I would think it's that people are better represented by those more closely associated and concerned with their locales and rationalities. The USA is a big place and the entire earth even bigger. There are certain, inalienable individual rights that ought be respected and upheld across jurisdiction (I don't care where my rights are being infringed upon if it's wrong it's wrong), but as for the vast majority of laws and regulations affecting day to day life the more local the government the better represented the citizens of that locale. So of course it extends to "county rights" and "municipal rights." In fact, for an extremely relevant example I would think the strongest recent argument in favour of states rights would be drug laws, and how many states have legalized medical marijuana only to have their laws superseded by the federal government.

Furthermore, I submit that slavery is an extremely poor argument for state's rights ("most powerful" ? please) and I only ever hear that from the opposition, given that rights extend to all equally. No one has the right to infringe on the rights of others. Therefore states have no "right" to enforce and protect the institution of slavery. No reasonable person could put forth slavery as a valid argument in favour of "rights." So stop trying to lump one group in with another in order to win an argument without having to argue in the first place. It's lazy and cowardly and slashdotters ought to expect more from individuals priding themselves on being intelligent.

What is happening is that America (and most Americans) don't want the U.S. government to be subordinated below some global government.

Ironic.

We've already seen what happens when sovereignty is surrendered to a more universal government, and for the most part we don't want to see that happen again.

Paranoia based on ignorance.

You may like the fact that Germany is the same as Spain except for some quirky food and local slang differences

Fucking ignorant.

Have fun with your games in the European Union, but the American Union is already seen as too powerful (sort of implied by your statements above I should note).

Delusional.

If you are, get the hell out of here. If America is such a crappy country, you aren't wanted here either.

I have a better suggestion: YOU get the fuck out of MY country, and go create your own ignorant utopia somewhere else. America isn't crap, but a good chunk of its people are ignorant, xenophobic, paranoid and have a gun fetish.

Living in America as an ordinary citizen isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be either.

It would be a whole lot better if people like you wouldn't advocate for torture of "others" and be so fucking ignorant as to make it impossible to have a productive discussion about anything other than whether the Cowboys suck.

Do you know why the ICC and for Europe, the European Court of Human Rights were created?

They were created because of the lessons of World War II, the realisation that citizens can't always count on their state to protect them. The recognition that sometimes citizens of a country need to be able to go to a third party to secure justice against the most appalling of crimes. It stemmed from the fact it was clear that groups such as the Jews in Germany in World War II couldn't count on their state to protect them - on the contrary, it was out to get them and they had no recourse for justice or protection.

If your country isn't willing to give you the assurance of protection against the most awful crimes known to humanity - a guarantee that it will not turn around and persecute you or your family for some arbitrary reason such as you skin colour, sexuality, or religion - then there is something deeply unsettling and backwards about your country.

The things the ICC can investigate are extremely limited in scope, so the suggestion that it is somehow a threat to sovereingty is laughable unless your government plans to carry out one of the most dispicable war crimes like rape, or a massacre of civilians. There is no danger of it's power spreading beyond this limited set of things it can deal with because the agreement you sign when you become an adherent to the ICC would then be void without you re-signing up to it.

So really, the only reason not to be party to the ICC, is if you actually intend to commit warcrimes. As the US has had some of it's troops do exactly this over the last 10 years then it would seem this is the more plausible reason for the US not being interested in it, rather than because of some fear of loss of sovereingty. The fact the US doesn't properly deal with war crimes committed by it's troops properly in it's own courts is further testament that it's about allowing US citizens to get away with war crimes, rather than a loss of sovereingty- if it was a sovereignty issue it could at least claim they don't need the ICC because they deal with it properly themselves, but they don't.

Just one final point, I see this attitude from some Americans quite often:

"We will fix our problems in our own way."

That's fine, but please bear in mind, that if your own way involves causing problems for non-US citizens and other countries, then please be aware that you lose all right to complain when something like 9/11 comes back to bite you, because things like 9/11 are an inevitable result of you "doing things your own way", such as fucking up Afghanistan to screw the soviets over and then subsequently abandoning it.

As an American, I may not necessarily support or endorse your point of view, but I absolutely support your right to bitch about it on the Internet and elsewhere.

As to whether our First Amendment rights apply to you, I've no idea (I don't know where you're from, or if your country/territory/whatever has similar free speech contingencies), but I do hope for your sake that you're able to state your opinion without repercussions (again, regardless of whether we agree).

If what Assange did was "espionage", then there are some US newspapers that are just as guilty. Remember the "Pentagon papers"?

The US government wanted to come down on the NYT and the reporters involved, but the courts said that simply publishing what someone else obtained by whatever means is not a criminal act.

The US is no longer a nation of laws. It doesn't even follow it's own laws if it's not convenient. It's gotten to where it doesn't even pretend otherwise anymore. The Bill of Rights gets lip-service, at best, these days.

You want to know why there are all these beatings in fast-food restaurants, on school buses, shootings like Giffords and Aurora, etc, popping up over the past couple of decades? People behave as their environment dictates, and the US government has turned the nation into a giant prison, so naturally, people behave like prison inmates...gangs, random violence, drugs, etc. It's also a large reason behind police brutality and the like. Police are no longer peace officers, they are prison guards. Screws. Enforcers. Government thugs.

The only way it will get better is if we the people rise up and force the government to obey the restrictions on their powers set forth in the Constitution. Yeah I know, "good luck with that", but still, that's the only way it gets better. It may take a few generations, however.

And why is that? I don't live in the USA, and the OP didn't state that they did either. The concept of free speech predates the USA by quite a bit, and the USA is one of the countries that has routinely shown contempt for the whole concept of rule-or-law or free speech even within it's own borders, let alone in the rest of the world where they don't even pay lip service to due process.If you want to argue that the USA won some war in the past that might have helped someone, I'd remind you that the USA did not act alone, and in fact was quite late to the party. And Contrary to what is shown in Hollywood, the USA didn't win anything by itself.

Riiight, after one of the "rape victims" left him alone, sleeping in her bed the sleep of the well fucked and what did she do when she was away from her "rapist"? She...went and bought him breakfast, followed by screwing him AGAIN after he ate. Does that SOUND like rape to you? Frankly it sounds like an insult to every woman that has ever been raped to me. Oh and the other one BRAGGED she had the Wikileaks guy as her BOYFRIEND. You're gonna brag about your rapist? I don't think so.

He asked the cops multiple times in Sweden before he took a single step out of the country if they wanted to speak with him and they said no. Swedish law says clearly they can question him anywhere, including where he is at now. Ecuador asked for a simple statement from the UK and Sweden that this wasn't some bullshit to give him a rendition ride to the USA and they refused...over a rape charge? BULLSHIT.

The Swedes and Brits are bowing down and kissing the ring like good little toadies and his ass will NEVER make it to Sweden, hell I doubt the Swedes would even land the plane, they'd just divert to the nearest USA military base where he can enjoy a nice waterboarding or drugging before they drop him in a box somewhere.

Bull-fucking-shit. In 2001 [hrw.org], it was CIA operatives that took possession of the two Egyptian men at Bromma airport in Stockholm. What you are confused about is what happened in 2006 [hrw.org] with one individual when Sweden was found to be complicit with the CIA in the case of extraditing I-Zari again to Egypt. I bet you would get the facts right if it was you that was bound, gagged and put on that airplane.

Seriously read the fucking law some day. it would have been easier to get him out of Britain. Sweden can't extradite him to the USA without Britons and the european court approval.

All that Said the USA has a plan for Him. the first is discredit him. By hiding in Ecuador he basically admits that wikileaks is for sale to the highest bidder. The list of Ecuador human rights violations is hundreds of times larger than the USA's is.

Ultimately wikileaks over the past two years has been toothless. every time it is mentioned this story comes up too. Seriously name one leak that has be published since this started happening?

"Extraordinary rendition provoked a diplomatic crisis between the United States and Sweden in 2006 when Swedish authorities put a stop to CIA rendition flights.In December 2001 Swedish police detained Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery, two Egyptians who had been seeking asylum in Sweden. The police took them to Bromma airport in Stockholm, and then stood aside as masked alleged CIA operatives cut their clothes from their bodies, inserted drugged suppositories in their anuses, and dressed them in diapers and overalls, handcuffed and chained them and put them on an executive jet with American registration N379P. They were flown to Egypt, where they were imprisoned, beaten, and tortured according to an extensive investigate reports by Swedish programme "Kalla fakta". A Swedish Parliamentary investigator concluded that the degrading and inhuman treatment of the two prisoners violated Swedish law.In 2006 the United Nations found Sweden had violated an international torture ban in its complicity in the CIA's transfer of l-Zari to Egypt.Sweden imposed strict rules on rendition flights, but Swedish Military Intelligence posing as airport personnel who boarded one of two subsequent extraordinary rendition flights in 2006 during a stopover at Stockholm’s Arlanda International Airport found the Swedish restrictions were being ignored.In 2008 the Swedish government awarded al-Zery $500,000 in damages for the abuse he received in Sweden and the subsequent torture in Egypt."

I don't see why anything Assange thinks he knows, about a possible US extradition on espionage or terrorism charges, has anything to do with rape and molestation charges in Sweeden. I never thought of Sweeden as an ass-kissing lapdog of the US, so it baffles me why a rational person would think he's more likely to be extradited to the US from Sweeden than from Great Britain. Personally I don't think Assange realises that he's not special enough to warrant all of the attention he's deluded himself into thinking the US is giving him.

Assange's main mistake was to be politically dangerous while not also being celibate.

The rape charge is just a pretext (to get him extradited). If he had indeed been celibate, they'd be after him for anything else they could cook up: parking tickets, overdue library books, or not saying gezundheit when someone sneezed.

Minor (or actually pretty major) nitpick... there are no rape charges. He hasn't been charged with anything. he was wanted for questioning. He was already questioned once in Sweden, he was told he was free to go, so he left, then they decided to ask him again, he even offered to be questioned in the UK, Sweden said no. He offered to be questioned in the embassy, Sweden said no. He offered to go to Sweden if they promised not to extradite him to the USA, they refused to guarantee that.

The original investigation, as I understand it, was about the fact that he had sex with her in her sleep (this is in almost all countries rape, as someone asleep is not able to consent), and explicitly told him to stop when she awoke, which he did not do. That story has been entirely consistent from the time it happened.

It's possible to be raped by someone you previously had consensual sex with.

Yes. It's quite a bit harder to make such a distinction when the alleged occurrence happens the same night, without having even left the bed yet from the former undisputed consensual liaison. I believe that comes close to the colloquial trope "lovemaking session".

Oh, and she continued to engage with Julian on subsequent occasions. She was certainly not in a position of personal, economic or social dependance on Assange. Actually, quite the reverse.

There is ample room to see how this has been manipulated politically. Especially when you get to the UK -- who won't even extradite SHAWN SULLIVAN, America's "Most Wanted Paedophile" to the US!

Two judges sitting in London allowed an appeal against extradition by fugitive Shawn Sullivan, 43, after the American authorities refused to give an assurance that he would not be placed on a controversial sex offenders treatment programme in Minnesota.

Sweden HAD the chance to hear him, on more than one occasion. It's not like he fled the country over night after the alleged rape, he was there for weeks during which nobody really wanted to bother to check whether he should be asked. After leaving the country, he offered on numerous occasions to be questioned and nobody really wanted to unless he gets sent to Sweden. Odd, ain't it? They don't want to ask him anything, they don't want to interrogate him, but they want his body in Sweden. Why's that?

The way I see it as soon as he sat foot onto Swedish soil, the US would instantly "request" an extradition with charges of treason, Sweden will instantly cave in (be honest, if you were the head honcho of a country and the US wants something from you, do you say no? Especially if you kinda need the US?) and the rape charges will conveniently disappear or get "settled".

Even if the rape charges were real and not, as I have to suspect after all the bull surrounding them, a fabrication, the women in question would never get any kind of justice.

I was going to do an "in before he hasn't been charged" reply to the OP, but obviously I'm too late.

1. Assange faces no charges in Sweden. There is not even an indictment.

True. But it doesn't really matter. For starters, "indictment" is an English word, and represents a common law concept of formal charges being brought. Sweden, being a civil law country may not have "indictments" in the US sense, in which case it wouldn't be surprising that one doesn't exist.

In paragraphs 128-154 of their judgment [bailii.org] (I wonder how many times I've linked that on/. this week...), the English High Court considered whether or not Assange was "accused" of a crime and found he was. I could paraphrase what they wrote, but I think it is fairly clear:

... even if the court was constrained to determine whether someone was an accused by solely considering the question of whether the prosecution had commenced, we would not find it difficult to hold that looking at what has taken place in Sweden that the prosecution had commenced. Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed as dependent on whether a person had been charged, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of common law eyes. Looking at it through cosmopolitan eyes on this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange.

I think that's pretty clear. So yes, he hasn't been charged, but that's not really important.

One of the women has retracted her allegations.

Again, this may not matter. I don't know much about Swedish criminal procedures, but traditionally prosecutions for crimes are brought by the state. It may be that one of the complainants has retracted her allegations and doesn't wish him to be prosecuted (although I'm not sure what you're source is for that - there's no mention of it in any of the legal proceedings I've read), but that doesn't mean a case cannot be brought. Unless she has changed her statements of fact, then the events supposedly still occurred, and a crime may still have been committed. Thus the Swedish prosecution authority may still have the right (if not a duty) to bring a case.

The "rape" allegations were cleverly manipulated and brought to public attention in an attempt to do several things.- Prey upon Assange's personality and identify his persona as a synonym for Wikileaks.- Move the core issues exposed by Wikileaks to the periphery of any examination.- Assault the liberal/humanitarian orientation of any naturally inclined to support Wikileaks and Assange, creating dissension and re-aligning former supporters.

I have to wonder what you are trying to imply with those ""s... but anyway. The allegations do seem to do all of those. That doesn't mean they are intended to. If the facts given (and uncontested, it seems, by Assange's legal team) are true, there does seem to be an arguable case for "rape" and "sexual molestation" (although ianal), and something like 5 courts in Sweden and the UK have agreed this (or at least accepted that the original arrest warrant, and EAW were both valid).

Just because Assange runs/ran Wikileaks, doesn't mean he should be able to act with impunity in other aspects of his life.

Assange spoke today -- Sunday. That statement by the U.S. was released two days ago in response to Ecuador calling for a meeting of the OAS. It was *NOT* in response to Mr. Assange's speech, as the summary implies.

I've noticed this in many slashdot summaries lately.. either as a result of poor selection by moderators, or by deliberate selection of yellowish content. Lets tag such stories with 'inaccuratesummary', and hope the editors take notice.

The US is not legally bound by the treaty as they have not signed it much as for the landmine treaty. However that does not mean that the US does not generally use the same behavior as that described by the text, just that there are conditions in which they do not wish to be bound by the treaty's terms (again much like the landmine treaty where the US refuses to eliminate it's well defined and maintained fields of landmines in the Korean DMZ which have not been the cause of any civilian casualties).

Hardly, the USA won't sign those treaties either... For that matter the USA won't generally sign any treaty that isn't horribly one-sided, and if they do in fact sign a treaty giving equal rights to both sides, they'll simply ignore it whenever it is inconvenient.The USA is the schoolyard bully of the international stage, they do things however they feel, whenever they feel, with no regard for the consequences, and can't understand why everyone isn't in love with them.

Because the TV cop show is right (if the embassy belongs to a country that honours diplomatic immunity and possibly political asylum). The fact that the US doesn't recognise political asylum is immaterial. Ecuador does and has a duty of care for anyone accorded that protection.

The US can't crash the party and then claim that the music isn't to their taste.

Let's assume that the conspiracy theories are right for a second. Somehow U.S. agencies are behind the charges against Assange in Sweden and believe they have enough control over the Swedish judicial system, and in extension the Swedish government, to get him delivered into their hands.Even if we assume that Sweden is an U.S. lapdog, we're still talking about a relatively open society, so this might be harder to do than in some other countries, but for the argument's sake: They really want to get Assange.Knowing all this, what does Assange do? Try to escape to Ecuador, of course, because the same agencies who managed to arrange the situation in Sweden will have no chance of getting to him there. I mean, who have ever heard of U.S. clandestine operations in South America? And of course the government and courts of Ecuador is much less corrupt than those of Sweden.

Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
—Justice Black

You're right. I suggest that we publish the names and photos of all undercover cops working against organized crime. Also, home addresses of the wives of people working covertly in places like North Korea or Yemen. Also, we should circulate a spreadsheet showing the schedule and routes of moving nuclear material. And when the government acts to put someone in protective custody or witness protecction, such covert activities - where the public doesn't get to know where the person is and what they're doing - should definitely be considered the sleazy act of an insufficiently GNU-Open-Secrecy-Is-Bad government.

Or is it possible that there are benefits, when doing things like talking to political parties in countries that are on the brink of a civil war, in being able to assure such a group that they can speak frankly while policy matters are hashed out?

What ever was I thinking?

Don't beat yourself up about it. Most other people don't think about reality, either.

That's a nice story, but those things weren't in the Wikileaks cables. Try again.

Not even a good straw man complaint, there. I'm replying (as you obviously know) to the GP's implication that government shouldn't do things in secret. Which is nonsense on the face of it. And you know that, but you're trying to change the topic so that reality doesn't get in the way of your politics. You try again.

Oh, and just in case you don't know about (though you do, and you're just asserting an alternate reality for bogus political points), the leaked cables absolutely do give up details of all sorts of covert operations, quiet conversations between nations, at-risk protesters with families living under brutal regimes like Iran, etc. Exactly the sort of stuff that's kept out of the public discourse for a reason. It must me relaxing to think there's nothing at stake in the world, and that none of people who risk their necks to get things done are of any worry to you. But then, that's what it's like to be in junior high school, right? Let me guess - 9th grade? Ah, those were the days.

I still find it strange that wikileaks got burned by a NEWS agency that supposedly leaked the decryption key.

Why would a news agency shit on its own sources like that?

The whole thing smells like a covert operation designed to give the world a reason to hate wikileaks.

All wikileaks did was mitigate the danger by making the leak public and giving everyone at risk a fair chance at protecting themselves. They TRIED to keep it redacted, but thanks to the decryption key leaking thanks to the news agency, their hand got forced.

Most news agency have no clue about computer security or cryptography. Wikileaks is one of the few places that does a reasonable job of protecting whistle blowers these days; major media outlets are clueless, still applying techniques that worked decades ago.

Are brain cells somehow becoming an endangered species even here on Slashdot?

Swedish legal protocol has been compromised so badly in this case it's hard to imagine a trial happening even if the guy IS guilty, but don't believe me, here's the considered opinion of a retired Swedish prosecutor [scribd.com]. Read it... it's informative. This situation could EASILY be solved by interviewing Assange in the UK according to Sven-Erik, and according to evidence on the public record [google.de]. Why the insistance on extradition in this case? The guy might be an asshat sometimes, but that doesn't deserve a ticket to gitmo... and this whole thing feels very bad. I think the average citizen in the west has been lied to enough that some healthy skepticism is long overdue, and frankly I'd be happier to see it err on the side of paranoia than apathy.

You didn't spend very long thinking about that statement. There are many things you don't want to be public, besides national secrets and all, such as your tax information and various other private records.

I don't see the conflict. The United States and China both support the Vienna convention which holds that the US embassy in China is under US law. If we shelter a dissident China is free to file an extradition request under the extradition treaty. Our ambassador to China has no authority to grant immunity from Chinese persecution but does have the authority to require paperwork.

So some reporter asked a loaded question (implying the US had an OAS commitment to recognize diplomatic asylum), and this is a correction.

The case of Cardinal Mindszenty, which many are bringing up, is one where the Communist Hungarian government did not in fact recognize diplomatic asylum; Mindszenty was stuck in the US embassy for 15 years until the Hungarians relented.

Thanks. That clarifies things a bit and you also raise an important point regarding the difference between diplomatic asylum and other cases of people seeking refuge in an embassy.

Before we all get too worked up about the US not recognising the concept of diplomatic asylum (too late I guess), there's less here than meets the eye. Diplomatic asylum is a concept that has long been accepted in Latin America, and it developed there in part because of some periods in which there were many coups and people trying to escape from new regimes found refuge in foreign embassies. Diplomatic asylum is however not the same as Chinese dissidents seeking refuge in the US embassy in Beijing or the Cold War cases, as parent points out, and this reflects that outside of Latin America, the concept of diplomatic asylum is not accepted under international law. That's why it's sometimes described as regional international law. Chinese and other dissidents are rather making use of the diplomatic immunity that these places enjoy, which prevents the authorities of the host state from exercising their jurisdiction on the premises but doesn't mean they can leave.

So while Ecuador sees the Assange case as a one of diplomatic asylum, the UK only accepts the immunity of the embassy (and if the story about threats is to be believed, not even that - but that would be a violation of international law). Had the UK accepted the notion of diplomatic asylum under international law, it could also grant safe passage to Assange to leave for Ecuador upon recognition of the diplomatic asylum granted by Ecuador. In any case, both UK practice and the US position reflect longstanding positions of international law, regardless of what we think about all the other aspects of the case.

I'd like to say at this point IANAL, but I can't, since I'm actually an international lawyer.

Just so you know, most of the world don't care which "side" you're on, we see the US government as being the US government regardless of who's in charge. So yes, you're right, but bringing Obama into it is the same as arguing over whether MacDonalds or Burger King produce the best burgers to feed to your kids every day.

There are arguments for and against this. Firstly, UK->US extradition is politically sensitive at the moment, after a number of high-profile cases (see McKinnon, Tappin, O'Dwyer to name a few). Most of it is political nonsense and right-wing grandstanding, but it might make things a bit awkward.

Secondly, if the US seeks extradition after the Swedes already have (although it should be noted that the two processes are significantly different), the case has to go back to court, go through a series of appeals, issues of whether or not the extradition to the US is acceptable, whether it should take preference, Sweden then get to have a say as well and it takes years for it all to get sorted out. Whereas if he goes to Sweden first (whether convicted or not) they only have to get a nod from the UK as well as going through one lot of extradition proceedings in Sweden. Plus, if he is found guilty in Sweden, they have the bonus of being able to call him a convicted rapist/sex offender, which may help with the politics.

That said... Sweden is still bound by the ECHR and EU law, so it isn't exactly going to be that much easier to extradite him than it would be in the UK.

again to avoid being interviewed by the first country where the alleged rape-ish behavior took place.

Sweden allows these kinds of interviews to be done via video conference and Assange has suggested the interview take place with him inside of the embassy. The fact that Sweden is so ardent about bringing him in person is highly suspect.

No, here in Sweden we don't allow these kinds of interview to be conducted via video conference

You need to read your own law [lagen.nu], dude. According to that ruling by the Swedish Supreme Court, if a subject is abroad and cooperating, video conferencing is appropriate. Up until very recently Assange was inarguably cooperative.

Have you actually read the case you are refering to? It doesn't say that video conferencing is appropriate and the subject in the refered case is not willing to cooperate, and so on. It most certainly isn't applicable to the Assange situation.

Um, yeah, I read it. The man was in Dubai and they brought him up on multiple tax evasion charges. The prosecutor said he needed to show up in person for the interview and the judge said he didn't. Substitute the UK and Assange in that sentence and then explain how it is that different. If Sweden is up for remotely interviewing a suspect on high value tax fraud then interviewing Assange in his case shouldn't be a problem.

Which charges have been piled against him by which governments? Please be specific.

Of course you know you're being a shrill, bleating goat-troll, since no charges have been made against him by any government, only complaints by two women about which police in Sweden simply want to interview him. Which you know. Which makes your frantic panties-in-a-knot rhetoric exactly as silly as it sounds.

Are you serious? How many times does this point need to be made? It wasn't randomly dumped [statesman.com]. Wikileaks collaborated with major media outlets to assist in removing sensitive information. Just because people spout the same bull over and over and...... doesn't make it true.